Quote from: jibbajibba;630517No Ben its not logic.
The reason you prefer the cleric healing option is that is your prefered game style.

No. That's not the problem.

It's a simple problem of logic, and now you're going for the bullshit non-argument intimating it's a matter of "game preference."

You're not actually answering the argument I laid out. So ... whatever.

Quote from: Benoist;630518No. That's not the problem.

It's a simple problem of logic, and now you're going for the bullshit non-argument intimating it's a matter of "game preference."

You're not actually answering my argument. So ... whatever.

Stop. think about how you are acting.

I propose a simple healing mechanism. I coudl explain the whole thing in what 2 or 3 sentences. It runs like the vast amjority of CRPGs that people play and it fits the assumption that HP are not just physical but are energy, skill blah blah.

It may not be the game you like but it is totally fine as a game mechanic. From a logic type perspective. Sure its a bit superheroish but no more so than you operate at 100% capacity until you are dead. Its a convenient gamist way of indicating wounds.

The only reason you reject it is because it creates a sort of game you don't want to play. the reasons you gave arround module design can all be made now by fans of 4e style play for why they don't want to go back to 1e healing and in that context they are equally as correct.

Now I am just trying to outline why the 4e fans are fighting so hard for their game style because they love their game style. Just like you love yours.
If Mearls had chosen a HD rapid recovery option you would be complaining just as hard as they are.

The pointis as you made yourself its a fundamentally important part of the game. As you said what ends up in Core is probably going to be what drives the engine for modules and all that, if they hope to present modules that can be played in basic, standard or advanced modes.

So step back and observe your reaction to the suggestion that hte core game should ahve rapid mundane healing and compare that to the 4e fans response to the fact that all parties will now need a cleric unless they are to be plagued but disjointed adventures and 15 minute adventuring days (and other stuff).

No you stop.

My actual argument is this:

(1) Designing a Dungeons & Dragons game with two radically different healing rates means that you won't be able to design modules and supplements for all the players of basic. You will be either designing modules for players using this assumption, OR that assumption, OR you will avoid the issue completely and pigeon-hole yourself out of the basic adventure format of the Dungeon & Dragons game where healing rates actually matter (e.g. the Dungeon/Wilderness exploration format) as far as the basic rules are concerned. This does not make ANY sense when the standard and advanced rules are designed around that notion: to cater to different people using different frameworks to play.

(2) From this point, you basically design a basic game with a single healing rate assumption. You basically have a choice between Clerics healing as in traditional D&D, adding mundane/higher healing rates in the standard/advanced rules, versus mundane healing in the basic game, adding Clerical healing in the standard/advanced rules. The former just makes more sense on a basic intuitive level, because (A) the Cleric is iconic of the D&D game, if the D&D basic game does not feel like D&D, you're fucked and recreate the 4e paradigm which landed WotC in the situation they're in right now, (B) it's way easier to have the Cleric, then add mundane/higher healing rates as option you can add to your game from the standard/advanced rules, rather than have mundane/higher healing rates in the basic game to then explain how you can SUBTRACT those from the basic rules and just keep the Cleric. Adding options is always easier than subtracting core rules from the basic framework.

That's it. Full stop. That's just logic. That's the actual line of argument you have not answered to, and keep evading. It's got fuck all to do with game preferences, unless you project your own when answering this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630521Now I am just trying to outline why the 4e fans are fighting so hard for their game style because they love their game style. Just like you love yours.
If Mearls had chosen a HD rapid recovery option you would be complaining just as hard as they are.

I'm not quite sure that's true. The cult of Rules As Written is much stronger among the hardcore 4e fans than among any other segment of the D&D player base.

I don't like healing surges at all, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me if they were in the core "basic" game, as long as options to get rid of them were included in the "complete" game.

Quote from: Benoist;630522No you stop.

My actual argument is this:

(1) Designing a Dungeons & Dragons game with two radically different healing rates means that you won't be able to design modules and supplements for all the players of basic. You will be either designing modules for players using this assumption, OR that assumption, OR you will avoid the issue completely and pigeon-hole yourself out of the basic adventure format of the Dungeon & Dragons game where healing rates actually matter (e.g. the Dungeon/Wilderness exploration format) as far as the basic rules are concerned. This does not make ANY sense when the standard and advanced rules are designed around that notion: to cater to different people using different frameworks to play.

(2) From this point, you basically design a basic game with a single healing rate assumption. You basically have a choice between Clerics healing as in traditional D&D, adding mundane/higher healing rates in the standard/advanced rules, versus mundane healing in the basic game, adding Clerical healing in the standard/advanced rules. The former just makes more sense on a basic intuitive level, because (A) the Cleric is iconic of the D&D game, if the D&D basic game does not feel like D&D, you're fucked and recreate the 4e paradigm which landed WotC in the situation they're in right now, (B) it's way easier to have the Cleric, then add mundane/higher healing rates as option you can add to your game from the standard/advanced rules, rather than have mundane/higher healing rates in the basic game to then explain how you can SUBTRACT those from the basic rules and just keep the Cleric. Adding options is always easier than subtracting core rules from the basic framework.

That's it. Full stop. That's just logic. That's the actual line of argument you have not answered to, and keep evading. It's got fuck all to do with game preferences, unless you project your own when answering this.

I bolded the bit where your logic breaks.
Your argument for using Clerics is that clerics are iconic and without them it doesn't feel like D&D
That is not logic that is gaming style.
You hopefully can see that someone who has been playing 4e might argue that that is not his gaming style.

Clerics don't need to be healers to be in the game and healing is still relevant because in combat healing is still useful etc.
Again I am not subtracting or adding anything. I am outlining 2 distinct healing paradigms.

I would aslo contend that rapid mundane healing was not the sole paradigm upon which  4e failed. You can not equate rapid mundane healing = 4e.
It ignore's so much more about 4e that was disliked.

Now again the purpose of my proposal was merely to show that some of the 4e fans at least are not operating out of malice but are in good faith trying to preserve one of the elements of play that they felt were improved in 4e. You may not agree but that does not make their position illogical.

Speaking from a purely personal choice position I am happy with daily heal rate with an option for more rapid mundane healing because that is the option I would use.
I don't want a game where I have to by a standard book full of Feats trees to get the 1 page on mundane healing.
I hate the healing wand, cheap ubiquitous healing potions solution to healing that blossomed in 3e far more than I hate a healing surge mechanic (though I dislike the 4e implentation). I dislike the successful party must have a cleric paradigm as well.
Its daft to me that you have such a heated debate between 2 styles of play because one style wants to allow each PC to heal X hp naturally through mundane means and the other group insists that you need to use magic to get the same effect but makes the magic so common that you can in effect always heal at nearly the same rate but at the same time magic in the setting is largely devalued because it is so common and in itself mundane.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630530I bolded the bit where your logic breaks.

That'd be great if (A) you weren't wrong about that, and (B) it was the only argument I made, which it obviously wasn't.

I think a big part of why 4E failed was the healing. Certainly there were 4E critics who agreed with the new approach, but one of the most common complaints about 4E i heard was healing. That and AEDU were the chief complaints.

Healing rates and availability is one of the basic assumptions of the game around which everything else that has to do with the traditional D&D game of exploration of the unknown turn around. It's one of these elements which has a domino effect throughout the game, spacing of threats in the game, numbers of fights a party can take before retreating, whether fighting is the prime tactical option of the game or not, whether you have to be cautious or not, the party behaviors thereof, etc etc etc, from which are derived the presentation formats and assumptions of the modules, etc etc.

Fuck around with this too much, and the game won't feel like "Dungeons & Dragons" to a lot of players out there. The basic game needs to feel like "D&D" to succeed. Then you can add all the bells and whistles anyone could wish for. That's it. Over. Kaput. Done.

It is really not rocket science.

PS: AEDU plays into another of those basic assumptions, which is the recuperation rate of powers and effects in the game, which in turn affects resource management, whether the focus of the game is the "encounter" tactical unit or something else entirely, etc. This is part of the same overall picture, and it affects the game play, presentation formats in a similar fashion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630530I bolded the bit where your logic breaks.
Your argument for using Clerics is that clerics are iconic and without them it doesn't feel like D&D
That is not logic that is gaming style.
You hopefully can see that someone who has been playing 4e might argue that that is not his gaming style.

So, are you saying that Clerics are not an iconic feature of D&D? That because of the 4 years of 4e's existence, Clerics and Clerical healing are now just reduced to a footnote in the pages of D&D's history?

Your gaming style argument might make more sense if you weren't comparing the 4e paradigm/playstyle with all of the paradigms/playstyles of editions that have come before. Each differing game styles from 1974 to 2007. (And clearly OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x have all differed quite clearly but retained iconic aspects of what D&D is).

Quote from: jibbajibba;630512I was merely asking how people here would feel if the HD mechanic was core and the Level HP per day (or 1HP per day + con bonus or whatever) was the optional rule.

At first glance, I would think that WotC was focusing 5e at a super-heroic power level, akin to 4e. And, if that's what WotC wants to do, then fine. That's a strategy that they need to figure out. Because, clearly, these small decisions will shape the power level of the basic set, which will then determine the power level of sets to follow.

Rhetorical question: Will they start with a more humble basic core and then elevate with the later sets? Or will they start the basic core at a higher power level than editions that have come before and then turn the dial up higher (Or turn it lower than the core with optional rules? That approach doesn't make sense to me).

Quote from: Benoist;630535That'd be great if (A) you weren't wrong about that, and (B) it was the only argument I made, which it obviously wasn't.

You and Jibba are having two different conversations. Let me restate his side, perhaps more clearly:

"Everybody talks about how unreasonable 4e fans are for demanding be in the basic game. Think about it from your perspective, if your version of were omitted. Wouldn't you be as upset and 'unreasonable'?"

That's his entire point (for the last 2 or 3 pages).

You're arguing about which is more iconic or a better design. He's trying to make people see things from a 4e fans perspective.

I'm not taking sides, but I thought the discussion could use some clarity.

D&D Next, Turn it up to 11!

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630583You're arguing about which is more iconic or a better design. He's trying to make people see things from a 4e fans perspective.

I'm not taking sides, but I thought the discussion could use some clarity.

Well it's very clear to me that jibba is not addressing my actual argument here, which has fuck all to do with game preferences, as he suggested more than once. Like. At all. So it'd be cool if he stopped playing Devil's advocate for 5 minutes (as compared to the last few years) and actually made a logical, cogent response to what people actually said for once. Maybe that's too much to ask. *shrug*

Quote from: K Peterson;630573So, are you saying that Clerics are not an iconic feature of D&D? That because of the 4 years of 4e's existence, Clerics and Clerical healing are now just reduced to a footnote in the pages of D&D's history?

Your gaming style argument might make more sense if you weren't comparing the 4e paradigm/playstyle with all of the paradigms/playstyles of editions that have come before. Each differing game styles from 1974 to 2007. (And clearly OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x have all differed quite clearly but retained iconic aspects of what D&D is).

Basically he's saying whatever he can to poke his dick in Ben's ear.  He does that a lot.  

The latest goad is constantly using the term Gamist when referring to core D&D mechanics as he's done in the last few threads.

I think Singapore must be kinda boring.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;630485Thats the one thing about old school healing that never quite felt right.

A 1st level n00b (unless killed outright) could never be more than a couple days of rest from being back at full effectiveness.

A 10th level lord could take weeks of bedrest to fully recover.

I could understand if were based on assumed age, since older folks take longer to heal but there was no direct link between age and level.

You are giving priority to having full HP before adventuring again.

A novice fighter can bounce back and adventure again at full, yes. But a veteran fighter has a greater range to explore before needing to return to town. And further, there is nothing stopping a veteran from returning to adventuring at the same low HP amount as a novice.

The advantage over novice full HP is, where the novice is full at like 10 HP or so, the veteran still keeps restoring HP with overland travel creating a buffer pool. Just like video games with overland walking regen, and the very obvious advantage of HP bloat, you can strategically get away with far less healing. Outside of a psychological feel-good of full HP, the veteran has complete advantage here.

The only issue is when the veteran takes on a greater challenge than a novice can so soon after. But then I ask if one is accounting for wilderness travel time and range of civilization (sphere of power). Why the hell is such a large threat so close in space and time? Greater perils so near and immediate to civilization usually provoke a full military action, with emergency magical healers working gratis, mustered armies, fleeing refugees, etc. Thus the assumptions of needing full HP for a veteran right out the gate of town - without everyone in town freaking out and working together furiously - is rather strange to me. Such a need would be an extreme situation, not status quo.

Edit: I also make the gross assumption that people are at town and not choosing full bed rest while at base camp. But then that again goes back to strategic management of HP. Novices would be at the bleeding edge of risk trying to pull base camp full bed rest, as one good base camp raid could mean casualties. Veterans have enough HP in strategic reserve to attempt such a strategy. The risks and advantages should be rather obvious among us here.